You can't fight the will of the majority re laws. Some here want to ban private smoking, as well!
Every tax you pay from income to taxable chattel goods supports the aims of a government- whether you like it or not. The minority is like a side-show in a democracy or republic. Meaningless. On Aug 12, 6:28 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll fight both I think. Smoking in public has not yet been outlawed > here, nor can I see it being outlawed. > > On Aug 12, 12:15 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What if swearing becomes unlawful like smoking in public? > > > Public rejection/acceptance is relative- it's now a matter of choice > > and taste rather than fixed by some absolute standards- created by > > whom? > > > On Aug 11, 6:26 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ohh OM, no sir you are wrong on this score. This is apt to happen the > > > more we guess at anoters motives rather than simply ask 'what did you > > > mean by that?' > > > > So let me clarify then. > > > > When I say: 'yes I will swear with impunity, and damn if others choose > > > to take offense or not.' > > > > Can you not see that I cleary say I do not care what anothers reaction > > > to it is. > > > > Can you not see that this is differant to: 'it is obvious that he is > > > in fact > > > demanding that others accept his behavior even if they do not wish > > > to.' > > > > I have to say it cannot be obviouse if you have it wrong. > > > > It is all about the individual. If I swear in front of you and you do > > > not like it, no way would I ask let a lone demand you to accept. If > > > you do not like it, then use your own freedom to say so or otherwise > > > express you dislike. > > > > True, I may just shrug my shoulders and tell you ohh well. Or I may, > > > appoliges and not swear in front of you again, dependant on many > > > things. But I assure you I do not demand anything of anybody, you are > > > as free as I to live your life your way. > > > > On Aug 11, 11:33 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Allan, being rather legalistic about this, you said: “That is a > > > > misquote Orn,…”. Accepting that all of our posts may contain typos and > > > > misstatements, if those are the words you wished to present, my > > > > response that I had used copy/paste along with any review of earlier > > > > posts by Lee will confirm that this was not a ‘misquote’ by me. > > > > > You of course may interpret Lee’s "...I speak as I will and expect > > > > everybody to do the same, …” as not being a demand. He would agree > > > > with you. And, parsing the phrase, I can see where you both could come > > > > to that conclusion too. In particular, he may have meant that his > > > > ‘expect’ation was based upon a personally assumed probability of > > > > apparent response by other people. I do get this. > > > > > And, even with this intention, underlying the comment is a firmly held > > > > expectation of what reality (in this case other people’s behavior) is. > > > > I interpret this as placing an artificial demand upon one’s > > > > appearances…that is, what one sees. Yes, this may be seen as a very > > > > subtle demand, but as I interpret it a demand none the less. > > > > > Further still, when one reads Lee’s justification of his behavior: “… > > > > Elswhere though yes I will swear with impunity, and damn if others > > > > choose to take offense or not. …”, it is obvious that he is in fact > > > > demanding that others accept his behavior even if they do not wish to. > > > > This expectation could turn the topic into all sorts of other areas > > > > such as Political Correctness, doing no harm, the Golden Rule and > > > > other such notions associated with morality. When seen through this > > > > lens, I retain my discrimination (in the archaic sense of the term, > > > > meaning to differentiate) of my best understanding of Lee’s position. > > > > > Oh, and Allan, no, I’m not running for office!....at least not in the > > > > political arena you mean. Some might take offense at your backhanded > > > > compliment…I take in the spirit of levity I assume it to have been > > > > given. > > > > > On Aug 10, 11:01 pm, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Orn isn't this copy/paste change the meaning? > > > > > (indeed my morality would > > > > > not have me make demands) I speak as I will and expect everybody to > > > > > do the same, this is no demand from me, but me excersing my will. > > > > > > Are you practicing to run for political office? If you are let me > > > > > know and > > > > > I will figure out hoe to register there.. so I can vote for you.. > > > > > Allan > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Allan, it was a copy/paste from Lee's post, so question him if you > > > > > > don't like the words. > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 9:53 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > That is a misquote Orn, it is not a demand or as I read it it is > > > > > > > not a > > > > > > > demand, just a statement. > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > "...I speak as I will and expect everybody to > > > > > > > > do the same, this is no demand from me,...:" - Lee > > > > > > > > > Lee, yes it is a demand. Please read it as if someone else > > > > > > > > wrote it > > > > > > > > about something you hold dear. The rest is but false choices. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 3:37 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I really don't get you at times OM. > > > > > > > > > > I have made no demands apperant or otherwise.(indeed my > > > > > > > > > morality > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > not have me make demands) I speak as I will and expect > > > > > > > > > everybody to > > > > > > > > > do the same, this is no demand from me, but me excersing my > > > > > > > > > will. > > > > > > > > > > Yes some people do find vulgar language offensive, I truely > > > > > > > > > do not > > > > > > > > > know why, I have simply never done so. I see no logics > > > > > > > > > attached to > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > it, it is a stance of reactive emotion. > > > > > > > > > > It is no bad thing also to fly agianst what you call morality > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > general, but I guess you mean social mores et al. Indeed > > > > > > > > > America had > > > > > > > > > a civil war because some decided to fly agianst such morality. > > > > > > > > > > Yes I do think that most people would rather be swore at then > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > their property stolen or damaged, do you not think the same? > > > > > > > > > > The latter being not swearing on Google groups? Yes of > > > > > > > > > course, there > > > > > > > > > are actions and consequenses. If I take the action of > > > > > > > > > swearing here > > > > > > > > > the consequences is nobody see's my post. Elswhere though > > > > > > > > > yes I will > > > > > > > > > swear with impunity, and damn if others choose to take > > > > > > > > > offense or > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > The latter being I will not rob or steal, yes indeed, I will > > > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > Can you not see the differance though? > > > > > > > > > > If I throw out a f***k here or there some may be offended, > > > > > > > > > but still > > > > > > > > > have their property intact. > > > > > > > > > > People are a strange lot, it constantly amazes me what some > > > > > > > > > choose to > > > > > > > > > get upset about, but you know I never begrudge them their > > > > > > > > > freedom to > > > > > > > > > do so, even if I do not always understand it. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 5:59 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In short Lee, your apparent demand to be able to say words > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > offend > > > > > > > > > > others is a stance that flies against morality in general. > > > > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > course, > > > > > > > > > > we have had these discussions numerous times. You now seem > > > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > > claiming that people’s attachment to property is more > > > > > > > > > > important > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > people’s attachment to social niceties. You will comply > > > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > > > former and not the latter. Yes, this is true subjectivity! > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 8:16 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay OM I'll play. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which examples have you for me of my compliantsey? > > > > > > > > > > > > Morality being wholey subjective indeed I find no > > > > > > > > > > > immorality with > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > use of what some would term vulgar language. > > > > > > > > > > > > My passions are of course neither blind and well thought > > > > > > > > > > > out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Morality as I say is wholey subjective and so mine says I > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > take or destroy property that does not belong to me, yes > > > > > > > > > > > I would > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > > that a moral stance would you not? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 4:06 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let’s see…to not publically display vehement disregard > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > draconian > > > > > > > > > > > > policies, in effect being compliant and going along with > > > > > > > > institutions > > > > > > > > > > > > that are anti-human and against humanity is being > > > > > > > > > > > > ‘moral’. And, > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > other hand, following one’s own blind ignorant passions > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > > language with impunity is being ‘moral’ too. I just > > > > > > > > > > > > don’t get > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 6:40 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, but my strong morality forbis that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 12:34 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or you could loot and rob which is the current > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sport. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 6:35 am, Lee Douglas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in the UK Allen. But as I say this suits me, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > don';t > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credit, I don't require deit either. I trust the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cash I > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hand and if I have not enough cash for a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purchase, then > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
